proofpage_record_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several non-obvious traits: it operates locally with no network access, it persists state (a side effect), it returns a run ID, and it warns that source excerpts are untrusted data — a genuinely valuable prompt-injection caution. It still omits idempotency behavior for repeated output_id values and any error/retention semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. The untrusted-data warning is terse but earns its place; the only weakness is that the retrieve/persist split is packed into one clause rather than sequenced clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-required-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the parameter contract almost entirely unexplained. It does say a run ID is returned, but an agent cannot confidently construct the query/name inputs from what is written.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three required parameters (query, name, output_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description only incidentally clarifies output_id; it says nothing about what "query" and "name" mean or how they affect the persisted record.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names two actions on an abstract resource ("retrieve local excerpts and persist exact inputs for an output ID"), so the core purpose is inferable but the dual verb makes it unclear whether this is a read or a write tool. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like proofpage_get_context or proofpage_replay_context, which sound closely related. An agent would need to inspect schemas to tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. "Returns a run ID for replay and drift checks" hints at a downstream workflow but never states the condition that selects this tool over proofpage_replay_context or proofpage_get_context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.